Cited by 32

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Empathy towards animals and belief in animal-human-continuity in Italian veterinary students

Colombo, ES, Pelosi, A, Prato-Previde, E·2016·Animal Welfare

Abstract

Empathy towards animals and beliefs in animal-human continuity appear to play an important role in shaping the human-animal relationship and in determining the way animals are treated and cared for. Veterinary medicine plays a central role in animal welfare and has been recognised as a highly caring profession, especially in companion animal practice: however, a number of studies have indicated that veterinary students show a decline in empathy towards animals and an increasing tendency to see them in Cartesian terms as they progress through veterinary education. In the present study we used the Animal Empathy Scale and the Human-Animal Continuity Scale to investigate empathy towards animals and beliefs in animal-human continuity in a sample of first-year (n = 131) and final-year (n = 158) veterinary students of the University of Milan, Italy. Results revealed a difference in empathy towards animals, with first-year students scoring significantly higher than those at the end of their academic training. This variation in empathy over time emerged in both male and female students, however females always had higher empathy scores than males. Moreover, veterinary students at the end of their course reported a more instrumental attitude toward animals, more pronounced in males than in females. Similarly, there was a difference in the perception of continuity between humans and animals which was more evident in males, with first-year students scoring higher than fifth-year students in some items. Results are discussed in relation to previous studies carried out in other countries and, given the importance of empathy in the veterinary profession, potential reasons underlying its apparent decrease are considered.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7120/09627286.25.2.275

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. 10.1136/vr.145.4.95 · DOI
  2. 10.3138/jvme.32.4.491 · DOI
  3. Hellyer, 1999, Attitudes of veterinary medical students house officers clinical faculty and staff toward pain management in animals, Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association, 214, 238, 10.2460/javma.1999.214.02.238 · DOI
  4. 10.3138/jvme.32.4.481 · DOI
  5. 10.1007/s10803-007-0486-x · DOI · Paper page
  6. Shurtleff, 1983, A nationwide study of veterinary students’ atti-tudes on ethical issues, Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 9, 93
  7. 10.2752/175303710X12750451258931 · DOI · Paper page
  8. O’Farrell, 1990, Students’ stereotypes of owners and veteri-nary practitioners, Veterinary Record, 127, 625
  9. 10.3138/jvme.38.1.74 · DOI
  10. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b17e55 · DOI
  11. 10.7213/estud.biol.7846 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.019 · DOI
  13. 10.2224/sbp.2006.34.7.769 · DOI
  14. Hart, 1989, The gender shift in the veterinary profession and attitudes toward animals: A survey and overview, Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 16, 27
  15. 10.7120/09627286.23.4.459 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.pain.2011.01.024 · DOI
  17. 10.1136/vr.146.10.269 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.012 · DOI
  19. 10.2752/089279395787156347 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsl049 · DOI
  21. 10.2752/175303714X13837396326576 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.010 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.2752/175303707X207918 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.3138/jvme.37.1.30 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Davis, 1980, A multidimensional approach to individual differ-ences in empathy, Journal of the Siena Academy of Science: Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85
  26. 10.1136/bmj.325.7366.707 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.jfms.2011.03.012 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Daly, 2008, Empathic correlates of witnessing the inhumane killing of an animal: an investigation of single and multiple exposures, Society and Animals, 16, 243, 10.1163/156853008X323394 · DOI
  29. 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1996.tb13783.x · DOI
  30. 10.2752/089279304785643230 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.180 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Apostol, 2013, Psychological and socio-demographic predictors of attitudes toward animals, Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 521
  33. 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.02.005 · DOI
  34. 10.1177/1098612X12445002 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04159.x · DOI
  36. Decety, 2011, The Social Neuroscience of Empathy, 199
  37. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02795.x · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.pain.2010.12.005 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.appet.2013.10.002 · DOI
  40. Jöreskog, 1984, LISREL VI Users Guide, Third Edition
  41. 10.1007/s10806-010-9232-z · DOI
  42. Signal, 2006, Attitudes to animals: Demographics within a community sample, Society and Animals, 14, 147, 10.1163/156853006776778743 · DOI
  43. 10.1017/S0140525X02000018 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.10.009 · DOI
  45. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318221e615 · DOI
  46. 10.1371/journal.pone.0010847 · DOI
  47. 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.9.1563 · DOI
  48. 10.2752/089279300786999699 · DOI · Paper page
  49. 10.1177/089124196025002002 · DOI
  50. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.12.009 · DOI
  51. 10.7120/096272812799129466 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1016/j.soctra.2006.02.001 · DOI
  53. 10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00 · DOI · Paper page
  54. 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1996.tb13778.x · DOI
  55. 10.1163/156853003321618819 · DOI
  56. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182224f1f · DOI
  57. Birke, 2007, The Sacrifice: How Scientific Experiments Transform Animals and People
  58. 10.3138/jvme.31.1.67 · DOI
  59. 10.3138/jvme.35.4.496 · DOI
  60. 10.1163/156853093X00028 · DOI
  61. 10.5116/ijme.4d47.ddb0 · DOI
  62. 10.1163/156853003321618864 · DOI · Paper page
  63. 10.2752/089279305785594342 · DOI
  64. 10.1037/a0014179 · DOI
  65. 10.1207/s15327604jaws0703_6 · DOI
  66. 10.2752/089279304786991945 · DOI · Paper page
  67. 10.5326/0380307 · DOI
  68. 10.1016/j.infbeh.2011.04.007 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Colombo, E., Pelosi, A., & Prato-Previde, E.
Venue
Animal Welfare
Published
2016-05
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
275-286
ISSN
  • 0962-7286
  • 2054-1538
Cited by
32
References
2
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review